Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU U 6336 Case file # 95-251022

Material Examiner: Malone CRQ)

Remarks:

After research it has been determined that the original incoming letter (with original
Laboratory number sticker 3013 10911 or copy of incoming letter (with origin al
Laboratory number sticker 301310911 of Examiner Malone (RQ) is missing from the case
file at the time of review bv the Independent Scientist .

Case resulted in trial, transcript available.

v.rtfn jp'f

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 2:30 PM (Time), 03/14/2001 (Date)

Filet): 95-251022

Laboratory #( s): 20827032

30131091

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

XQ

□

□

□

TN

□

Xa

o

□

a

o

Q

a

Materials Reviewed

Trial testimony transcript(s) of:

Testimony Date(s):
Laboratory Report(s):

Pages:

Laboratory Number: 20827032

Laboratory Number: 30131091

Laboratory Number:

Date: Oct 25, 1982

Date: Feb 1, 1983

Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ

Laboratory Number: 20827032

30131091

Page i of 4

Initials:

1^1 ft

Was any other material reviewed? Xo Yes □ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: Submitting agency letters (dated 8-24-82 and 1-27-83)

Results of Review

File#: 95-251022 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q5, Kl, K2, K.5-K7

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No" or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original eramination(s)?

O Yes X □ No O Unable to Determine

2) Arc the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? Q Yes X □ No □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments arc required below or on
additional pages for any “No" or “Unable to Determine” Responses

□ Transcript not available.

3)

Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)?

Xn Yes

□ No

O Unable to Determine

4)

Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

Xo Yes

Q No

□ Unable to Determine

5)

Testimony within bounds of examiner’s expertise?

Xo Yes

a No

□ Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 4^

Initials:

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use "Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File#: 95-251022

#1: The testing of the duct tape was performed appopriately, with one exception. The warp and fill fibers, in the
tape from the victim’s residence should have been compared to the fibers in the duct tape recovered from the
suspect’s car.

The examiner had test procedures available to him at the time that he could have utilized. By performing melting
point, for example, he could have determined if the beige fibers were the same type of nylon. This cannot be
determined from the testing he performed, as he has testified in other cases. Also, cross-sections should have
been prepared of the beige fibers to compare. One cannot always determine if two fibers have the same cross-
' section from a longitudianl view as was performed in this case.

Review completed at: 3:45 PM (Time), 03/14/2001 (Dale)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 1:15 hours

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 4 pages.

03/14/2001

(Signature)

(Date)

Page 3 of 4

Initials:

Additional Comments
(Set forth by question tt, if applicable)

File#: 95-251022

#2: The examination results set forth in the laboratory report are supported by the bench notes, but the
documentation is marginally adequate. The notes are not dated or initialed and arc in pencil. RQ uses the
abbreviation “ftfvtc" in his fiber comparison. This abbreviation is difficult to interpret.